Brian Urlacher: Where's the Outrage?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Then it becomes obvious that you have not been paying attention. The only people that have said anything about money is the media and us spectators. Yes NFLTA is the media. They asked him the question about money.

You don't make sense - are you saying I can't have an opinion on this?

[#56fanatic]

honestly, the Bears should have known this and reworked his deal after giving Briggs the big extension. If you looked to your right or left and saw a guy making more money than you, and you are the best LB on the team (top 5 in the NFL at your position) wouldn't you be a little pissed. I dont blame him for wanting more money. I blame the Bears for not addressing this when it should have been addressed.

[hagams]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

honestly, the Bears should have known this and reworked his deal after giving Briggs the big extension. If you looked to your right or left and saw a guy making more money than you, and you are the best LB on the team (top 5 in the NFL at your position) wouldn't you be a little pissed. I dont blame him for wanting more money. I blame the Bears for not addressing this when it should have been addressed.

I'm really suprised nobody brought that up about the Briggs deal. That's the first thing that popped in my head. If the lesser of the two can complain and get more money, why not BU? Are the a little on the gready side, Yes. Do we need either of them, NO. Would we be happy to have BU if we didn't have London, Yes.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by hagams

I'm really suprised nobody brought that up about the Briggs deal. That's the first thing that popped in my head. If the lesser of the two can complain and get more money, why not BU? Are the a little on the gready side, Yes. Do we need either of them, NO. Would we be happy to have BU if we didn't have London, Yes.

Briggs was a free agent to be when he was complaining, whereas Urlacher is under contract, is coming off a bad year, battling injuries & about to turn 30. Yet, for some reason, he thinks the team should re-up w/more $ to pay him on par to the player he was 2 years ago.

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Briggs was a free agent to be when he was complaining, whereas Urlacher is under contract, is coming off a bad year, battling injuries & about to turn 30. Yet, for some reason, he thinks the team should re-up w/more $ to pay him on par to the player he was 2 years ago.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Briggs first started griping when they put the franchise tag on him. So, technically he was not a “free agent” in the truest sense. Perhaps he felt he was worth more but he was still bound by the agreement, no different than a contract.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by lwiedy

Correct me if I’m wrong but Briggs first started griping when they put the franchise tag on him. So, technically he was not a “free agent” in the truest sense. Perhaps he felt he was worth more but he was still bound by the agreement, no different than a contract.

I believe the difference is that the two sides (player/management) don't generally agree to the "franchise tag." It's simply a right the team has to exercise, it's different from two sides agreeing on a contract

Now though, Briggs shouldn't complain. He was a free agent and on the market and, for whatever reason, he agreed to a pretty crappy deal (in relative terms).

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I believe the difference is that the two sides (player/management) don't generally agree to the "franchise tag." It's simply a right the team has to exercise, it's different from two sides agreeing on a contract

Now though, Briggs shouldn't complain. He was a free agent and on the market and, for whatever reason, he agreed to a pretty crappy deal (in relative terms).

You are certainly right there. And it is not suprising that a guy is unhappy if he feels he's been short changed. I was just addressing the original point that his original crying was not when he was a FA, but bound to an agreement (in essense, a contract) which gave him no more real right to complain than B.U., that's all.

Was his FA deal crappy? I really don't know the particulars. Hard to imagine that after all that posturing about how the system failed him, he wouldn’t have done better for himself.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You don't make sense - are you saying I can't have an opinion on this?

I am not saying that you cannot have an opinion. I am saying that it has been noted that he is not doing this for money, and despite those reports you still affirm that he is in fact doing this for money.

Edit* This whole dialog is based on what you said about CJ. How does it not make sense?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Angry

I am not saying that you cannot have an opinion. I am saying that it has been noted that he is not doing this for money, and despite those reports you still affirm that he is in fact doing this for money.

Edit* This whole dialog is based on what you said about CJ. How does it not make sense?

All I said was that I believe this is more about money than winning - meaning, I'll be shocked if Johnson takes a paycut (or even just a modest pay raise) in order to sign with a contender. There are no "reports", there is just what he is saying right now. That means all there are right now are opinions, and time will tell which is correct.

[T.O.Killa]

First of all, I have not seen that much outrage against Chad Johnson. If I was him making half of what TO does, I would be pissed also. Not to mention stuck with the Bengals. Urlacker probably deserves a better contract also.